The Adams

Chapter 2: Holy Tradition

The great historian of the Church and of Church doctrine, Jaroslav Pelikan writes:

Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.
Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition, p 65.

It is important then, to distinguish between proper tradition (what he calls living faith) and false tradition (which he calls dead faith). Although this is not directly addressed in the Grace Church Doctrinal statement, it is so closely tied to Chapter one that this is the most logical place to discuss it.

Let us now examine what we mean by Holy Tradition, and the implications for the faith.

What is Holy Tradition?

There are two excellent Scripture verses that tell us exactly what is meant by the words "Holy Tradition:"

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints
Jude 3, NKJV

And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 2:2, NKJV

In short, Holy Tradition is the deposit of the faith, passed on from generation to generation. It includes everything that Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Apostles have given to the church.

Scripture or Tradition?

Some place Scripture and Tradition in opposition to each other, but this is not the Orthodox position. Others place Scripture and Tradition on the same level and set them up as co-equal, but neither is this the Orthodox position. For Orthodoxy, there is but one deposit of faith that contains everything that God has given to the Church via the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are part of this deposit of faith, and thus are part of Holy Tradition.

It is important to note right away that the Scriptures are not "over- ridden" or "trumped" by tradition, but are the cornerstone of tradition. They are the "canon" - the measuring stick - by which all doctrine must be judged. No Orthodox teaching is in contradiction to the Scriptures, nor can it be, for if it is, it most certainly could not be part of the deposit of faith. The Holy Scriptures, as interpreted by the Church, have the final say over any and all matters of faith and practice. They do not have the only say. And, as shown in chapter 1, this is quite Scriptural (see the above discussions of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 3:6-7; 1 Corinthians 11:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 3:14-15).

In point of fact, the Scriptures are themselves a product of the oral tradition of the early Church. The gospels were preached orally, later being written down by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Once can also see in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew usage of the Gospel of Mark - the use of prior tradition. As discussed above, the use of oral tradition in the Scriptures has precedents in both the Old and the New Testaments - the authors were simply following accepted practices. Similarly, both Luke and Matthew had access to some collection of sayings that they used in common which do not appear in Mark. This collection could have been oral, written or a combination of both.

Holy Tradition or Traditions of Men?

There is no doubt that certain the Scriptures condemn kinds of tradition. For example, Jesus takes the Pharisees to task about the traditions that they keep, and impose upon Israel. He says:

Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? "For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God" 'then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "
Matthew 15:1-9, NJKV

The clear point here is that the Pharisees are ignoring the clear teachings of the Scriptures and imposing their own rules. This is not a condemnation of all tradition, but of tradition that transgresses the commands given in the Scriptures.

In the same way, we see Paul objecting to certain kinds of tradition:

As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Colossians 2:6-8, NKJV

Again, we see a condemnation of tradition that is in contradiction to the faith taught them by the Apostles. Note well that Paul does not say "tradition not found in the Scriptures" for then he would be contradicting himself as he wrote to the Thessalonians (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 3:6-7). What Paul is objecting to here is worldly philosophy and worldly teaching, not the deposit of faith that he delivered to them.

The question then is, where does Holy Tradition fall? There are two criteria given by Paul and Christ: 1) Does it nullify the Scriptures; 2) Is it worldly tradition, as opposed to part of the deposit of the faith. In both cases, Holy Tradition passes the test.

It is quite clear that the Scriptures do not condemn all tradition, and this fact can be seen in the lengths that the translators of the NIV went to in an attempt to avoid a positive mention of tradition. Their tortured translations of the word 'paradosis' make it quite clear what their agenda is. That word is translated as "tradition" every time in the New Testament, except in the three verses where Paul speaks positively of tradition! There is no logical reason to do this, unless one has an agenda that denies positive tradition!

Compare the translations of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 found in the NKJV and the NIV:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle [NKJV]

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. [NIV]

The problem with the NIV translation is that it in no way resembles the underlying Greek text, substituting nouns for verbs in an attempt to not use the word "tradition" in a positive light. The NKJV translation matches the underlying Greek (as do the KJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV and others).

Why is this an issue? Because the NIV is an extremely popular version, used by many evangelicals. And this translation hides the truth of the Scriptures from them! It is quite sad that the translators felt the need to resort to this kind of slight of hand.

Apostolic Tradition

The question can be asked, how do we know that our teachings are those of the Apostles. As one Protestant correspondent said:

But how do we know what qualifies? Again, in the absence of some kind of unbroken chain that can be demonstrated to descend directly from Paul, or Peter or James or John or the others, this fact is irrelevant.

The thing is, we can demonstrate just such a list. But even if those lists are unavailable, we have the writings of men who had accurate lists. This objection is quite well known to the Church. And it is fundamentally a false question, since they will not accept the teachings of those who have such links! Iranaeus of Lyon expressly deals with the Gnostics by demonstrating Apostolic succession by naming those who filled the Bishopric at Rome:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians,

Now, since Iranaeus can demonstrate Apostolic succession (continuity), those who wish to dispute his teachings must show that the Apostles taught otherwise! If they cannot, then the evidence points to the truth of Holy Tradition. Taking another example, we have Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who sat at the feet of John, giving support to many doctrines that are rejected by Protestants as "non-Apostolic" or "traditions of men" yet this Bishop was a disciple of the Apostles!

Let's be quite clear - if the objection to these doctrines is based on a lack of a direct line from the Apostles, that objection is clearly refuted by Ignatius, Iranaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr and other very early commentators. Many of these issues will arise when discussing specific doctrinal claims in the Grace Church Doctrinal Statement.

Apostolic Succession

While not directly part of the argument for tradition, it is important to discuss Apostolic Succession, and give a preview of church government. When we speak of Apostolic succession, it is important to understand exactly what we mean. First of all, it is not succeeding to the office of Apostle, for that office no longer exists. It does mean, though, a continuity of doctrine from the Apostles. It is important to note that Orthodox have a different conception than the West. For Rome, legal concepts played into the argument as to whether or not a man had a valid (i.e., a legal right to his) ordination. This concept, which leads to such strange situations as "wandering bishops" in the West, is unknown to the East.

The authority of the Bishop is fundamentally the authority of the Church. However great the prerogatives of the bishop may be, he is not someone set up over the Church, but the holder of an office in the Church. Bishop and people are joined in an organic unity, and neither can properly be thought of apart from the other. Without bishops there can be no Orthodox people, but without Orthodox people, there can be no true bishop. 'The Church,' said Cyprian, 'is the people united to the bishop, the flock clinging to the shepherd. The bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the Bishop.' The relation between the bishop and his flock is a mutual one. The bishop is the divinely appointed teacher of the faith, but the guardian of the faith is not the episcopate alone, but the whole people of God, bishops, clergy, and laity together. The proclamation of truth is not the same as stewardship of the truth: all the people are stewards of the truth, but it is the bishops particular office to proclaim it.

Here we see the most important principle of Apostolic Succession - being part of an Apostolic Community that has Apostolic Faith. If either of those are missing, we do not have a true Bishop, no matter what his pedigree. If his congregation is not Orthodox and his faith is not Orthodox, it simply does not matter who laid hands on him to make him a bishop, for he is no longer a bishop. This important difference from Rome (where succession rests, in effect, on a personal pedigree, not doctrine) is quite important. It provides appropriate checks and balances to keep the faith from generation to generation.

And this is no new teaching, for as we have seen, Apostolic Succession is taught in the Scriptures:

You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 2:1-2, NKJV

This is exactly what Iranaeus says that the Church is doing! And he gives the necessary demonstration of the apostolic nature of his teachings. I ask Protestants, especially Evangelicals, where is your list of Bishops? And where is the continuity of faith required by Apostolic succession? If you don't have this, how can you have the true teachings of the Apostles? After all, as we saw in Chapter 1, they are not all written down.

Chapter 1
Chapter 3

The Adams
Suggestions/questions about this website: